Can hear the cleat improvement over the previous album, some of the best 60-70s folk music you are going to hear 5*

Terrible stuff really, why is there so much talking!? It's crazy someone decided that was a good idea. They recorded it, listened back to it and said "yeah, love it leave it all on the album". So fucking annoying. Why is this on this list?! 1.5*

Sometimes I think some albums are critically acclaimed because they remind the reviewer of a certain time in their life rather then it being exceptional. This album I feel is a case in point. Perfectly fine, enjoyable in parts but was not crazy about it 3.5*

Fairly bog standard 90s r&b asides from superfans don't think anyone is still listening to this. Totally inoffensive stuff 2*

Atmospheric and accomplished. Quality. 4*

3.5 *

3*

3.5*

3.5*

Of it's time, clearly influential but now very dated. Sounds like iron maiden, which is a bad thing. 2*

Impressive technically, overly long 3*

One of the few nu metal albums that isn't an embarrassment 3*

Never noticed how many annoying samples and instruments Basement Jaxx used until now 2*

Has continued to confirm to me that anyone who claims a Velvet Underground album as their favourite is the worst kind of tedious "arty" bore. Unlistenable for the most part, this noisy rock sound has been done 1,000 times better since 1*

Atmospheric and accomplished. Quality. 4*

Just a little more variety and this would be an utter classic, regardless a great album 4*

Great music by great musicians. 4*

Mark Langean is a great singer, but the material is very ordinary. Strange why this was included. 2.5*

I could see how someone would like this, loud and intense but not for me 2*

Made writing a hit song look easy on some of these. Some songs are so-so though 3*

I'm neither a teen or angsty, so it doesn't appeal to me that much but I see why people enjoy it. 3*

After 1,000 tepid copycats since its release still one of the best singer/songwriter albums out there. 4.5*

Meh 2.5*

Can see it having its fans but just not for me 2.5*

Appreciate what they are trying here, but doesn't land quite right for me 2.5*

Indicative of better things to come 3*

Tough to hate this, strong funk influences with a Brasilian flavour. great sound 4*

Doesn't feel like it does Sam Cooke justice. Lot of chatter, intros, and then the actual song content is quite brief. Shame, it's great what is little there is. 3*

If this wasn't Bob Dylan would anyone care about this album? It's put together fine but very hard to get excited about this. The rave reviews are baffling to me. 2.5*

The music hall influences I could leave, I don't get the fascination with it, but the rest is great. 3.5*

Seems like every song on this could have been a single. Might get a bit of hate for being so overplayed but still a classic 5*

Not as a perfect as an album as is typically made out, one or two duds I reckon. But still, some absolute classics there as well, quality. 4.5*

Sounds quintessentially PJ Harvey, although her posh accent is quite jarring against the loud guitars sometimes! Still very good, worth a relisten 5*

Like hearing songs from various different bang average musicals jammed together. There is a reason some albums are obscure, tedious. 2*

Can really hear the influence on bob Dylan. Woody Guthrie did it better but still solid 3.5*

Impossible to say anything more 5*

It's the smiths, never could get into them. Some decent singles but was never bothered by the albums. 2.5*

Long, so long. There was a visual performance to go along with this, maybe it worked better in an actual live context. Endless guitar and effects noodling is tough to enjoy without being on drugs. 1.5*

It's good but I think Santana has retroactively made this sound dated by just rehashing this sound over and over again through the years with little interpretation. 3.5*

Crazy to go back and read contemporary reviews of this. 90s was crazy for genre mash ups and this is a great example of some of the rubbish put out. Lyrically, it is relentlessly cringe faux gangster rubbish. The music is somewhere between Muzak and throw away chill house samples. Scooby Snacks is fun I suppose, rest is crap. 1.5* Also, free John Gotti?!

Strange choice over discovery in my opinion but amazing all the same. Still sounds completely fresh 4.5*

Hard to fault this. 5*

Dreamy 60s throwbacks, nice but forgettable 3*

I feel like there is something of emperors new clothes about Nick Cave. You would look foolish to dislike him. But I can't get past the overwrought lyrics and spoken word like delivery. The music is fantastic though. I would listen to an instrumental version of this no problem and it somewhat saves it. 3*

2nd Nick Cave album in a row, what are the odds? Quite high I believe, in any case like the other the musicianship here is great but I just can't get past Nick Cave's singing and wordy lyrics, just too much. 3*

80s synths, if that sounds good to you then this is a classic. Otherwise 3*

Like songs from a musical, not for me but I can see others enjoying it 3*.

Sublime soul songs, didn't expect anything else. 4.5*

Feels more like a soul instrumental album, but very well put together, but I feel could have been trimmed to something very tight 3.5*

The sort of album you think is there anyone out there who actually super into this? Not bad but very tepid stuff 2.5*

A classic for good reason, a little overlooked sometimes for bigger hits. Let down a little by one or two duds, the bob Dylan song in particular 4*

Indie singer/songwriter who launched 1,000 imitators. Still holds up well, but not a sound I'd go for. 3.5*

Could well be the best band name ever. Album is good, would encourage checking out others 3.5*

If anyone ever asks what the 90s was like just play them this. 3.5*

Terrible stuff really, why is there so much talking!? It's crazy someone decided that was a good idea. They recorded it, listened back to it and said "yeah, love it leave it all on the album". So fucking annoying. Why is this on this list?! 1.5*

Solid outlaw rock 4*

Fairly standard punk rock, much better was to come 3*

Awful stuff, England has a real cottage industry of crap like this 1*

Although the singing is of typically high quality the material is just aimless and meandering. Let's the whole thing down and there is better out there. 2.5*

Better than Courtney Loves reputation would have you believe, seems obscured from her very public persona that this is actually decent 3.5*

Quality as expected 4*

It certainly has a pop charm, dated somewhat now I feel. If you like Green Day then this is one of the better ones otherwise 3*

A decent sound but all sounds very similar and blends into one. OK 3*

Perfectly fine 60s pop rock by why listen to this when there is far more interesting stuff out there from this time period. Sunny Afternoon is an utter classic though 3.5*

There always seems to some aversion to hooks or chorus with Peter Gabriel. Hearing a full album like this does get a bit tiresome. Style wise it's a bit everywhere, feels like he is trying to string together a lot of ideas, sometimes a bit jarring. But it is at the very least well sung and performed. 3*

Laid back sound, demonstrates bob Marley's range well. But does blend a bit into one. 3.5*

Self indulgent really, do people really enjoy listening to this the whole way through? 2*

Great instrumentation but some songs overstay their welcome a bit.

A bit everywhere in terms of sound but couldn't get into this 2.5*

Reading the description of bands like this always sounds interesting and then it's always 80s synths with droning English singing. So many bands sound like this, what was going on in the 80s?! Tedious for the most part 2*

Classic Neil young 4*

An example of a album is so well put together its better than the sum of its parts. Fantastic 5*

Very much in the Björk mode, tendency to blend into one, although I wonder if that's intentional. Well put together in any case 3.5*

This is good, and can see what it's important but there is other seminal jazz albums out that that I enjoy more. Still great 4*

Unfortunately for these guys the who, the Beatles, mc5 and a lot of others where contemporaries of theirs, they were never going to out do them. The white album was released the month before as an example! Solid all the same 3.5*

Classic stuff, barely a miss here 5*

Good, but better bowie albums out there 3*

Boring prog rock, can't understand the fascination with this 2*

What everyone with a synth was trying and failing to do in the 80s. Shows electronic instruments could have depth and melody 4*

Fairly bog standard 90s r&b asides from superfans don't think anyone is still listening to this. Totally inoffensive stuff 2*

Brought a whole new sound, would be developed massively from this though 3.5*

Really captures the live atmosphere of a great blues gig by one of the legends of the genre 4*

Charming narrative driven country. Interesting to hear an alternative to in the pines compared to the famous Nirvana version 3.5*

Fairly tepid 60s throwback. Another album to ponder why is it on this list? 2.5*

Not something I would enjoy repeatedly but definitely see the appeal 3.5*

A bit meandering in parts but still very good, some classics here of course 3.5*

A few songs go a bit nowhere but then there is some absolutely classics here too. 4.5*

Fairly tepid blues rock, makes you wonder what was the point of putting this out? The less said about the woeful Bob Marley cover the better. 2*

Was expecting to like this a lot more, not particularly wrong here but nothing to get excited about either 3*

Prog rock noodling for the most part, I just find this genre of music hard to like. The production is crisp though, shame about the musical content. 2*

Have a preference for Ride the lightning personally. it's does drag on a little on songs. It is however still a classic album, the vast majority of metal bands could only dream of creating this. 4.5*

I can't decide whether this is good or not. They have a style of their own, can see people being super into this but not one id revisit. 3*

Folsom prison is better and this was all too brief, shame although what is there is excellent 4*

The sort of thing you would hope the album generator would highlight. A mix of country/alt rock/ jazz and everything else. It's well put together. Horrendous album cover but not that it matters... 4*

Not nearly as bad as I expecting, but does highlight how much Johnny Marr brought to the smiths. 3*

I predict sometime in the future there will be a fairly dramatic revision by critics of how many "classic" albums were released in 60s and 70s when rock was in its infancy. People will come to realize that it just happened to be released at the time and is not that good. This album will be first in the firing squad. Boring blues rock numbers with one or two good songs. 2.5*

I find the synths and what not of nu-wave hard to get into but this was actually really good. 4*

Some decent singles mixed with fairly pedestrian blue eyed soul. Groovin' is an amazing song all the same. 3.5*

Sort of what you would expect from Slipknot I'm sure if your in to this type of thing it's enjoyable 3*

I think any decent artist should reflect on why they are presenting their art to the public and think "what am I adding to the medium"? Because of Dion or Phil Spector did they would have not released this boring overproduced shite on the world. Awful 1*

Quality jazz, well put together 5*

5* obviously, but the one thing this album does, which is great, is that it shows country music can have all the urgency and passion of any other genre. Sometimes I feel country music is thought of something dower or downbeat and this is certainly not.

All the worst instincts of 60s rock captured in one album. Tedious 1.5*

If I was in a bar a few beers deep I could enjoy this. But if you are going to do any album that so closely sticks to one genre, ie southern rock, you can't afford to do such a long album. It gets stale. 2*

Appreciate the importance of this album but it's not one I can get into, although I would not argue it's bad. 3.5*

I do really like this album be it has a few too many dud moments to make it a full five stars, but great nonetheless 4.5*

I really don't like the first two songs on this but the rest is great, so that lets it down slightly but I reckon this is his best album. 4.5*

Hard to imagine so many massive hit songs on one album 5*

Would be need to be a certain mood from this but still excellent 5*

The importance of this band is understandable but the material is ultimately a bit weak, shame feel like there on the cusp of a good album here 2*

Enjoyable bombastic jazz, I presume this is what the cover hints at! 4*

The temptations have some classic songs but they are not on this album. The marvin Gaye cover has been done a lot and to be honest it's just...fine. nothing amazing here to be honest but was an enjoyable listen 3*

The music itself is fairly well done but it can't get past the woeful lyrics. They really have dated badly, the misogyny seems excessive even for the time. Milky cereal may be the worst rap song ever created. 2*

A real mixed bag of genres, sounds like they are having fun but really lacks consistency. 2.5*

Baffling choice for this list, nothing at all remarkable about this. Singing in a very affected voice does grate after a while 2*

Not as tedious as you would imagine going into a 20 minute prog rock epic. Production is great and doubtless good musicians but I don't think it comes together to something satisfyingly cohesive 3*

As usual very well put together album from Marvin Gaye, it is all a bit in the same tempo a small bit of variety would have been a 5 but instead 4.5*

Always found a man needs a maid to be a strange song but the rest here is excellent 5*

The germ of a good album here but falls flat too often, strange this in included given Beck's other superior albums included 3*

One or two ideas stretched to its limit on a single album. It's almost impossible to distinguish one song from another. 2*

Not expecting the mix of music this contained and the unexpected Irish influences. Full of ideas and well executed 4*

The quintessential Bowie album feels wrong to give this anything but 5*

Reminds me of local radio, they would play crap like this presumably it was cheaper than playing something well known. Or they had terrible taste. Anyway, early 80s easy listening, hateful stuff 1.5*

Theres some great Neil Young albums out there but this isn't one of them, still a fine album but nothing amazing 3*

Poignant folk songs, expertly put together 4*

Can never get into this 70s New York punk, but this album is probably the best example of that sound. If your into this its up there as one of the best otherwise 3.5*

This album is why you sign up for a process like this. 4*

Could see it having it's fans but is it really that remarkable? The slow r&b numbers at the end really feel tacked on should have been left off. 3*

Psychedelic mix of rock and other influences, nice to hear someone try something a bit new. 3.5*

Orbital presents "2000's DVD menu background music : the soundtrack"

Certainly one of the best post punk albums, a genre I'm not keen on, but they make it work. Their is something of The Doors about this that I can't quite place why...4*

Somewhat disowned by Radiohead but this still stands up really, most indie band from the 90s couldn't even touch this 5*

Fairly average glam rock heavily inspired by David Bowie, with one or two highlights. Would love to hear a compelling argument to why anyone would listen to this when you have Bowie. Great cover though! 3*

Reasonable take on folk Americana but nothing remarkable, once again a bit strange it's included here 3.5*

Ethereal emo 3.5*

Almost a modern classic just a few dud songs let it down, but still a great album 4.5*

Very cleared following on from Ziggy stardust, does have a feeling of this was on that albums cutting room floor. Still some great songs although the jazzy interludes I could leave 3.5*

Found this to be quiet boring, the droning vocals do not help. Hard to even consider one highlight. But not particularly offensive either though 2*

Preferred this to music from big pink but lacks something I can't quiet put my finger on 3.5*

It's got an anger which maybe I don't appreciate, but this is an archetype for all the imitators that came later. Still one of the best 4.5*

Competent late 80s indie, may have been groundbreaking at the time but difficult to see now 3*

It's a struggle to produce music that is mostly electronic based and not sound dated particularly decades later, but Depeche Mode have avoided that and this still holds up really well. 4*

Competent and earnestly preformed but few standout tracks. Reminds of the typical pub bore who contends that such and such modern music isn't "real" music and then go on to claim this album as an example of the "real" music in their mind. Makes for a tedious discussion no one bothers to argue and they go on believing themselves correct forever. 3.5*

I suppose if you are into post punk you might like this but found it a bit meandering, ok in parts 2.5*

There is undoubtedly something new here for the time. Proto post punk but it gones on and on. Some judicious editing could have really made this something special, but now dated I feel. 2.5*

I think negative reviews of these are always unfair, calling it "lager" rock. How many bands could write an album of songs which a large number of still resonate with people decades later? There is a certain element of snobbery about it. 5*

The acoustic/ electric spilt works out well I feel. One of two songs are a bit wordy but if are someone who appreciates Neil Young's singular singing style this is a decent album by any means 4*

A lot more compelling than their debut, production is better here but still not perfect by any means, maybe people still weren't sure how to produce this type of music. Still, really good. 4*

Now I know where various sitcoms and ads during the 2000 got their music from! Fairly lack lustre stuff, another one for the why is this on this list pile 2.5*

Painful, I just can't believe people like this, I do not get it or why in fact Sting is as famous as he is, great PR maybe? 2*

I was interested to here this but this is some really songs where they are trying to create more a vibe than a song. If you are big into funk you might get something out of this, but honestly I wasn't keen 2.5*

Not that it matters but a fairly woeful idea for a cover in my opinion. In any case, let's be real, if this wasn't David Bowie this wouldn't be on this list. Enjoyable in parts both not something I would return to 3*

To be honest I find the parts that don't have a lot of guitar to be the highlights. They are few and far between though. I think this process really has given me a distaste for 60-70s straight blues rock. All fairly boring really isnt it? Anyway, still well preformed and maybe one of the better albums worth of music like this. 3.5*

It's obvious in parts this has been overdubbed with studio recordings, debatable this is a "live" album. Still some great versions of thin Lizzy's hits here, some surpassing the album version. 4*

Some part of me thinks this would have been better if they didn't overlay the effects and just played the songs straight. Still some great songs and do you realise is definitely top ten songs of that decade. 3.5*

Forgotten what a classic this album, back in our minds is probably the only sort of dud here rest are all classics 4.5*

Can hear the cleat improvement over the previous album, some of the best 60-70s folk music you are going to hear 5*

One of those albums where I could appreciate someone loving it, but 20min free jazz sessions are hard to love for the average person 3*

Quite a slog to get through, the music is a bit of it's time and maybe could be appreciated for it's time and within context but the lyrics...the worst sort of faux spiritual dog shit you could ever hear. Utterly ruins any possibility of this being decent 1.5*

Another reasonably decent Neil Young album but nothing exciting 3.5*

Probably the best who album out there, but never could get into the who in general. Songs getting in tune are so lazy lyrically, a song about tuning your guitar. Amazing... In any case still some great songs here 4*

A bit on the long side, don't know if the crowd interaction is necessary and could have a bit tighter. But still great example to know what it was like to be there live 4*

Can see why this is included, it's just fine in my mind though, nothing amazing nothing terrible 3*

Typical sort of rock bar tunes. Fun and loud, nothing groundbreaking but an enjoyable listen 3.5*

It's mostly fine, they hadn't really found their distinct sound by this stage, I would expect this would not be included if it wasn't Queen 3*

Listened to this so much on cd I wore it out. Fantastic album that shows all the elements of the Beatles sound that would go on to make them one of the greats. Certainly in the mix for the Beatles best album 5*

Ethereal sessions of jazz. The guitar work adds an interesting dimension to it. 4.5*

Bang average 60s pop/ garage rock, stepping stone is a highlight rest is fairly forgettable 3*

There is something about this that is so obnoxious. Like they have written all the elements of what makes "rock" music and tried to stick them all in regardless of how good it sounds. As of it was a recipe for success. Which it ironically was. Their continuing appeal remains baffling. 2*

What could have been another decent/great album by Metallica let down by a terrible mix and songs that stay too long. One is still an amazing song all things considered 3.5*

Every electric gone acoustic attempt after this album was trying to emulate this effortless performance, and no one has come near. Easy 5*

Has some absolute classics here but I think this is a bit more spotty then people seem to admit. If it it was trimmed to one album it would have been amazing, a common problem of the double album. 4*

A mash up of various sounds and styles in some sort of mad scientist approach to music. But has as many hits as misses but it all comes together perfectly on paper planes. Still 3* overall

Enjoyable but common with albums around this time I think the synths date it a little 3.5*

Enjoyable, but could have done with a bit more variety. 3.5*

Enjoyable enough but nothing too exciting here, has made me think I don't like the use of organs in jazz 3.5*

Take away the singles and it doesn't leave a lot of decent tracks on this album, goes to show that Rolling Stones were one of the best singles band and putting together a cohesive album was always a struggle 3.5*

Short and sweet, no song here that you could say was bad, definitely one of bowies best albums 4.5*

Has the sound of artists who could create something conventional but instead opt to to do their own thing entirely. Worked for Picasso has not worked here. 1.5*

Better than I remember, but I feel the lyrics are just a long line of immature statements about the UK's scared cows, I never thought there was ever much thought behind it, just trying to be provocative . 3.5*

Some great songs here, but some meandering parts where I think they indulged Jim Morrison a bit too much. All the same one of their best albums 4.5*

Almost perfect album, shame no one ever got to hear the next one 5*

Even if the Beatles went on to do very little I think this would still fairly popular, but a couple of weak points 3.5*

The Christmas album is usually the last refuge of the has been heritage act but this is a genuine effort to make something really good. Will definitely stick it on next Christmas. 4*

Some great songs, some mediocre songs. I think the idea of departing from Nevermind was a good idea but just didn't quite come together right. Still a decent album 3.5*

An easy 5*, a classic from start to finish

There's some decent songs here but it's clear his approach needed more work 2.5*

No doubt she is a good singer but this is so dull 2*

Sometimes I think some albums are critically acclaimed because they remind the reviewer of a certain time in their life rather then it being exceptional. This album I feel is a case in point. Perfectly fine, enjoyable in parts but was not crazy about it 3.5*

I like the idea of this, soundtrack to an imaginary film, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired. Interludes of reasonable good music with some fairly manic parts. 1.5*

Whatever you can say about about Michael Jackson the person it's hard to claim this is a bad album. Suffered from having to follow up Thriller but still a great album

They have their distinct sound and it's well crafted but it lacks a certain heart 3.5*

Given the time this was made it is an amazing accomplishment, goes to show electronic music was as legitimate as any other style of music 4*

A album I think that would have benefitted fromsome re-writes and editing, the crumb of a great album was here 3.5*

Was original at the time as a concept album but I think in the fullness of time this is a bit forgettable. The production is impeccable though, amazing clarity for an album from the 60s. 3*

Feels wrong to give anything less than a 5*

Feels like I'm listening to one long song, it's a fine song but there is very little going on here. Fine background music I suppose. 2.5*

Could really have done with trimming the fat on this, far too long with dreamy intersections. The songs proper though contain some defining songs of the britpop era. Seems to be a snobbish about this sound years later but I still think it holds up. 4*

Truly amazing the amount of hits this band kicked out in such a short space of time. Could be a greatest hits album 5*

Mixed bag of songs, poor in parts. I always thought Madonna was incredibly derivative, she just does styles of music that is popular at the time and hopes for the best. The bjork style "Paradise" is a particular low light, however he American pie cover is a war crime. 2.5*

I do like the sort of jazz Bill Evans produces but I found this hard to get into, I didn't find anything particularly compelling about it, not to say it's not bad. Just nothing mind blowing 3*

Asides from Son of a preacher man and windmills of your mind it's fairly standard blue eyed soul, little boring in parts but she does have a great voice. 3*

Enjoyable enough, unfortunately for Def Leppard being fun will catch you a lot of hate from music purists 3*

Reminds me of "What's going on?" The album needs to be heard all together to enjoy it at its best. Excellently preformed and great to hear people still successfully trying something new 4*

Very much the 90s album, portishead vocals mixed with Nirvana riffs. Decent 3.5*

Best enjoyed as one continuous listen rather than listening to each song individually. Comes together brilliantly, and wish you were here has to be one of the best songs of the 70s

A bit twee all these years later, but there is no denying the quality of Garfunkel's voice 4.5*

The fuse around Elvis Costello is a bit baffling to me, what is so special about this? 2.5*

Barely recognisable as the beach boys, fine for the most part, an interesting curio for beach boy fans more than anything I would say 3*

Hard to distinguish one song from another, a reasonably decent idea for a song stretched across an entire album

Amazing amount of hits here in just one album, some absolute classics here as well 4.5*

Perfectly enjoyable but not something I'd be racing back to hear again 3*

Started off ok but just drones on and on, I don't see what is remotely compelling about this 1.5*

Did it all start to go downhill here for the pixies? Nothing on the previous albums 2.5*

Blown away this band is spoken of in the same breath as Metallica, Slayer and Megadeth. So average and they whining vocals are tough to listen to 2*

Certainly can here the influence on later singer songwriters but there was nothing overly compelling about this 3*

Like a lot of double albums could do with being trimmed a bit but still some absolute classics here 4.5*

Boring and pretentious, hard to see anything redeemable about this, makes me wonder why Neil Hannon is as well known in the UK and Ireland as is he 1.5*

Completely understandable why this included but not one for me 2*

Singer/songwriter performs music in old fashioned style for a new audience seems to be a huge industry in the UK. So many performers fit that definition. Anyway fairly inoffensive, would be nice to throw on in the background. But nothing mind blowing 3.5*

The odd low light but doesn't stop it being a classic of the grunge era 5*

I see a lot of what I presume is Americans bemoan the amount of dull British bands on here. Although there may be a hint of truth to their complaints, let Steely Dan show the US is not immune to producing inexplicably popular dullards like Steely Dan. 2*

Not what I was expecting but still a decent listen. Unfinished symphony is an absolute classic 3.5*

Is there any contractually or financially obligated albums out there that are really good? Marvin Gaye is one of the best but this was subpar, only his amazing vocals are saving this. 3*

I get the sneaking suspicion they really thought they were doing something special here. Neil Hannon really has the touch of merde 1.5*

Certainly the Beatles strangest album yet it at the same time encapsulated everything they were about. Not my favourite Beatles album but still a classic 5*

Springsteen is one singer I could never get into. I can't think of anything specifically bad about it, just sort of washes over you. But I wouldn't begrudge his inclusion here 3.5*

I remember liking this when it came out, I think the breathy vocals on pop song were not as overly common place. An interesting departure from their usual style, enjoyable all the same 4*

A very 90s album mix of Bjork and Kate bush, it's enjoyable enough but I'd think I would rather the original inspiring artists instead

Fun and creative but nothing mind blowing 3.5*

Why is this considered good? Honestly do not get it. Perfect day is a quality song but the rest is diminishing returns. The tail end is woeful. 2.5*

Solid electric blues album from one of the greats 4.5*

I would be amazed to learn that Nick caves singing style was not heavily influenced by Brian Ferry. The album, I find is meandering, never really landing anywhere interesting for me 2.5*

Pink Floyd meets Nine Inch Nails and tom waits is singing in french. Sounds like nightmares 2*

Remove "One" and "Even better than the real thing" this starts to become a fairly weak album. I never noticed how overwrought U2's lyrics were until hearing this. Just about 3*

Solid performances and enjoyed it the whole way through 4*

Public Enemy's albums still have all the intensity they had at release, must have been quite the revelation then. Undeniably influential 4*

Not what I was expecting having never heard it, quite the odyssey of an album 4*

I feel like a could go into a music shop, pick a country album completely at random and get one of comparable quality. Poor production and almost sounds like parody 1.5*

A real modern classic, everything is free really needs to be better know 5*

If you wanted to quickly summarise English rock music would be easiest just to listen to this. Still a quality album that holds up well. 4*

Think I still prefer the other jimi Hendrix experience releases, but still it's Hendrix the guitar playing is still phenomenal. One Rainy Wish and Little miss lover are highlights aside from the obvious hits 4*

Iron Maidens continued appeal continues to allude me. But not the most horrible thing I've heard. 2.5*

Bland Cafe music, not bad but why would anyone bother is beyond me 2*

Some highlights but feel like it rehashed enter the 36 chambers far too much 3.5*

Suffers from the same problem most double albums have, would have been far better with some serious editing 3.5*

An undeniable classic 5*

Utterly forgettable mellow songs. No idea what anyone sees in this 2*

It's put together fine but i sort of fail to see what is particularly special about this 3*

Never has a band delivered on what their name promised more than this band. Chaotic blues rock better than I think other reviews here would indicate 3.5*

Talking heads is one of those bands that I can fully appreciate why people love them, but I can't seem to get into it. All the same this is still good 4*

Always find it hard to get into this, feel like I'm on the cusp of "getting it". 4*

The Rollings Stones have very few albums I could listen to the whole way through but this is one of them. 4.5*

Musically really enjoyed it, lyrically maybe it's an acquired taste but I see how someone make get the appeal of this 4*

Rod Stewart really has a nice raspy voice that would play well with a rock song, but the material here is fairly weak, sounds like jam sessions at times, shame. 2.5*

Is mostly fine but nothing that exciting about this, I doubt this will stand the test of time as being particularly notable 3*

A metal classic 5*

If your in to punk I'm sure you could enjoy this but can't say I was blown away 2.5*

Honestly, try why too hard to do something "cool" and atmospheric. Nowhere near as good as they think it is 2*

Maybe not something I'd be quick to revisit but it's the sort of thing you would hope you would uncover in a list like this and not 100 different 80s British post punk deary shite 3.5*

Quite dull in hindsight. As to why you would take such an over saturated influence as American indie for your primary source on an album is sort of baffling. Is it some insane hubris whereby you are thinking "oh, we can show the Americans how to do this better?" 2.5*

An interesting diversion from their usual sound enjoyable but not their absolute best 4*

An interesting listening, must have been extraordinary at the time of release to here something like this. Obvious why it's included here but not one I'd go back to often 3.5*

I think albums like this from way went for my an atmosphere then working each song in particular, pleasant and well preformed 3.5*

Hasn't persuaded me to listen to punk more often but it is certainly one of the better punk albums presented here 3.5*

Still sounds like a modern album which sometimes difficult with sample based music. A worthy inclusion here 4.5*

Chaotic funk album, their influence is still alive and well 4*

Has the sound of a fairly compelling album that would benefit from repeat listens 4*

Fairly peculiar vibe but fun and well preformed 3.5*

Smooth bossa nova, hard to hate this 4.5*

A fairly tedious rendition of 70s rock. I just can't understand how deep purple are held in such esteem. 2.5*

It's good but does wash over you a little. Interesting hearing the studio version of no woman no cry, can see why the live version is more popular 3.5*

I think muses biggest problem is how overly earnest they are with some fairly over the top ridiculous lyrics and music. Could do with more of a sense of fun, but I just can't see this as being as horrendous as some people some to think. Still entertaining 3.5*

Entertaining enough album, wouldn't see it's anything remarkable though 3*

Admittedly didn't like it at the start but sort of grew on me. If your into psychedelic music I could appreciate why you would enjoy this 3*

Is this the best debut album ever? A possible contender, great album despite all the thievery that went on here 4.5*

This process has given me a real dislike for post punk but I can appreciate at least people enjoying this one. Still not one I'd be crazy about 3.5*

Unrelenting in it's utter dullness. 1.5*

A funk classic, hard to hate 4.5*

I think film soundtracks rarely stand up well outside the context of their respective films, but this is one of the exceptions 4*

This is one that is hard to dislike 4*

I have heard better albums from Joni Mitchell a bit wordy and a bit aimless 3*

Sort of fine, not something I found overly compelling. Can imagine others being into it 3*

Final albums can suffer a bit from tokenism and overstating the quality. But I think for a Leonard Cohen this still holds up but maybe not his finest. Still decent 3.5*

I like the inventiveness of this but don't feel like it comes together into something cohesive 3*

Enjoyable enough 70s rock, nothing groundbreaking but fun nonetheless 3.5*

Was about as long as tedious I would have expected 2*

Good, but the skits are horribly dated which does drag it down a bit 4*

The influence of this is easy to hear, a classic for good reason 4.5*

Not terrible by any means but why listen to this when you have PJ Harvey? 3*

There are bands that play a style of music because that is what they are most passionate about. Then there others that just do what's popular. The eagles are the latter. Competent but fairly soulless 2.5*

Usually don't go for overly 80s sounding albums, but this is a great realization of that sort of sound 4*

Could have done without the mouth harp or whatever is pinging away in the background but otherwise some classic songs here 4*

Not at all what I was expecting, quite good actually 4*

Suppose it's one of the better sounding punk albums but still not that keen 3*

Couple of classics, holds up pretty well but not a world beater 4*

A very interesting story around this album but it's enjoyable and makes for a nice mood. 3.5*

If there was an album that would date this list it's this album. Came out to a flurry of critical acclaim, just not that great in hindsight 2.5*

Captures a live show great but far too short on material, could have been a classic otherwise 3.5*

Dreamy indie pop not as good as I remember but still good 3.5*

Definitely one of the better ways to get the appeal of Muddy Waters, still sounds fresh 4*

Good but much better and accomplished was to come which you can't help but compare to 3.5*

Peaches is a decent tune, couldn't be much bothered with the rest 2*

So overplayed it's almost hard to hear what a classic this is 5*

Dreamy 60s pop, never quite connected with the beach boys, this album didnt really change that 3.5*

It's mostly fine assortment of songs but not practically memorable either 3*

A lot of hits here, but some filler those drag it down. Hard to hate in any case 4*

There is a decent chunk of these that is very samey but towards the end it changes up a bit. But I don't think that part is remarkable enough to make this anything particularly great 2.5*

I see where a lot of TV shows got their music interludes from. Nice background music but nothing memorable 3*

Overly long I feel but on repeat listens I could get into this 3.5*

Not prefect by any means but you can see the beginning of something here. Back to black just blows this out of the water and it's hard not to compare. 3*

Fairly generic 60s rock, nothing special here 2.5*

Doesn't quite reach the heights of 36 chambers, but still great 4.5*

A lot of albums have naysayers but I never understood how you could be critical of this or the very least not understand the appeal 5*

Certainly one of those bands and album that I could appreciate it's inclusion here but it's just not for me 2.5*

Varied and interesting but veres a little too much into the dreamy quality it has overall. 3.5*

Jazz inspired hip hop album, very easy to enjoy on first listen 4*

I think raidohead are at their best when not going fully electronic and overlaying live instruments. Think this album bears this out, the best songs are less electronic. Not their best overall but still decent 3.5*

Thought the falsetto would get annoying but I think it works. They have used a recording that sounds really live which I think is actually the best part 4*

Good in parts dates in others. For every walk this way there is a Hit it Run. Understandable it's inclusion here all the same 3*

Feel like this is a one Dylan album that never gets mentioned alongside the usual great ones but its also a classic in my mind 4.5*

All over very quick and does blend into one. But you can't deny it was a novel approach and it's influence is fairly undeniable 3.5*

This is what Jefferson airplane thought they were doing 4.5*

Good but never quite reaches the highs of Good times on the rest of the album 3.5*

A blues bar jam essentially, nice sound overall but nothing in particular jumps out as outstanding. Rolling Stones continue to be a great singles band only in my opinion 3.5*

A decent album but there is something unrelentingly obvious about the whole "big beat" sound. 3.5*

Sounds like they were trying something here and it has not paid off 2*

Music for wine bars, totally inoffensive and dull 2*

Very inoffensive bossa nova. Would make great background music at best. Nothing remarkable in my opinion and another one for the "why is this on the list" pile 2*

I would say there is a compelling case for this being the best singer/ songwriter album out there 5*

A lot of the hits are over played but an enjoyable beatlesque album 4*.

Prefectly fine r&b / soul album but there is nothing particularly stand out here 3*

Still sounds great all these years later. A true classic 5*

Music for try hards by try hards 1.5*

I think this is an album that benefits form context, the big stadium sounds here was brand new. But sort of sound stale at this point of time. But even taking in the above this is still a solid album 4*

A quintessential Dylan album, sounds exactly like what you would expect 4.5*

More varied then the reviews seem to make out here, some very familiar songs here but overall a decent album 4*

A 60s classic but would argue it's not completely prefect. 3.5*

Hard to deny this is a quality album 4.5*

There is a bit more filler on this then it's reputation would suggest but still a classic despite the reputation of the artist 4*

A classic of the genre, the influence is undeniable 4.5*

A classic which has a lot of terrible imitations 4.5*

Very off the wall but still very enjoyable. You can tell this was a lot of fun to make 4*

It's by no means terrible but I fail to see why this receives such widespread acclaim. 3.5*

The quantity of UK 80s bands on this list is utterly ridiculous but this was one of the few decent ones. Not the most essential album ever but a decent listen 3.5*

Pelseant enough but was expecting more given the esteem Scott walker is held in 3.5*

Loud and aggressive the beginnings of grunge are obvious here 3.5*

A talented singer but a lot of songs just wash over you and are nothing memorable 3.5*

When people take about historical rock acts this is the sort of thing that really deserves more coverage 4.5*

The prefect mix of ballads of his earlier work and the more experimental songs of his later career. Very good late classic 4.5*